Changes in the CFC Inventories and Formation Rates of Upper Labrador Sea Water, 1997–2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chlorofluorocarbon (component CFC-11) and hydrographic data from 1997, 1999, and 2001 are presented to track the large-scale spreading of the Upper Labrador Sea Water (ULSW) in the subpolar gyre of the North Atlantic Ocean. ULSW is CFC rich and comparatively low in salinity. It is located on top of the denser “classical” Labrador Sea Water (LSW), defined in the density range σΘ = 27.68–27.74 kg m−3. It follows spreading pathways similar to LSW and has entered the eastern North Atlantic. Despite data gaps, the CFC-11 inventories of ULSW in the subpolar North Atlantic (40°–65°N) could be estimated within 11%. The inventory increased from 6.0 ± 0.6 million moles in 1997 to 8.1 ± 0.6 million moles in 1999 and to 9.5 ± 0.6 million moles in 2001. CFC-11 inventory estimates were used to determine ULSW formation rates for different periods. For 1970–97, the mean formation rate resulted in 3.2–3.3 Sv (Sv ≡ 106 m3 s−1). To obtain this estimate, 5.0 million moles of CFC-11 located in 1997 in the ULSW in the subtropical/tropical Atlantic were added to the inventory of the subpolar North Atlantic. An estimate of the mean combined ULSW/LSW formation rate for the same period gave 7.6–8.9 Sv. For the years 1998–99, the ULSW formation rate solely based on the subpolar North Atlantic CFC-11 inventories yielded 6.9–9.2 Sv. At this time, the lack of classical LSW formation was almost compensated for by the strongly pronounced ULSW formation. Indications are presented that the convection area needed in 1998–99 to form this amount of ULSW exceeded the available area in the Labrador Sea. The Irminger Sea might be considered as an additional region favoring ULSW formation. In 2000–01, ULSW formation weakened to 3.3–4.7 Sv. Time series of layer thickness based on historical data indicate that there exists considerable variability of ULSW and classical LSW formation on decadal scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".